Science Is/As A Religion

[HUGGY]

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

Well, I can agree that studying is not "research". I'm not too sure how anyone would go about "researching" religion, apart from using an anthropologic approach.

Bingo!

 

[Madeline]

Why thankies, Huggy.

 

[Intense]

There is allot of Research and Analysis in Religion too. Both involve Humans, and along with Humans, our Natures, Limitations, Prejudices, bias's, preferences.

No, not really. Scientific research is drastically different and held to much higher standards than religious "research," which itself is usually code-word for "studying." Scientific research uses the scientific method to produce an experiment that analyzes the world, and collects data from that experiment to draw logical conclusions. Religious "research" involves reading other people's "research," which itself is circular reasoning, to support previously conceived notions. It's essentially a book report under the name of "analysis."

You are generalizing and mis-categorizing. How many religions around the world do you believe you speak for? Probably none. How many have you studied in detail? You may know science, you may know medicine. What you are showing by your statement is the flip side of the coin, of how people in the name of religion mis-characterize science, by mis-characterizing religion. Being human, we all wrestle with boundaries.

 

[Intense]

Bad direction is bad direction, be it science, religion, life.

For example, what brought us to this point?


Jon Markman at MSN Money doesn't hold back when he says "Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy." It's even more provoking when he writes "replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%."

The problem isn't with the cars, the problem is with what it takes to grow the biofuel in the first place. Clearing the land, harvesting, and refining the crops, plus the loss of forest and wild lands and habitats, amounts to creating a carbon footprint worse than fossil fuels. According to the Science article which, admittedly, posits an extreme scenario, it would take 423 years to even out the carbon debt if Indonesia's peat lands were converted to palm oil fields.
Science magazine declares ethanol worse for the Earth than fossil fuels — Autoblog

 

[Intense]

Several more companies are expected to begin producing biofuels next year, but an energy research associate says the public should not expect any energy breakthroughs anytime soon.



Five companies will begin producing cellulosic ethanol in 2011, which is different from regular ethanol in that it comes from woodchips and grass instead of sugar or corn. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act already calls for 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be on the market next year and for 16 billion gallons to be produced per year by 2022.

But Brian McGraw, a research associate with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), has worked closely with the alternate ethanol and says this type of production is not commercially viable.
'New' ethanol not commercially viable (OneNewsNow.com)

 

[Intense]

Original Preface. The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine. What the Church teaches and has taught; what she has done and is still doing for the highest welfare of mankind; her methods, past and present; her struggles, her triumphs, and the achievements of her members, not only for her own immediate benefit, but for the broadening and deepening of all true science, literature and art — all come within the scope of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It differs from the general encyclopedia in omitting facts and information which have no relation to the Church. On the other hand, it is not exclusively a church encyclopedia, nor is it limited to the ecclesiastical sciences and the doings of churchmen. It records all that Catholics have done, not only in behalf of charity and morals, but also for the intellectual and artistic development of mankind. It chronicles what Catholic artists, educators, poets, scientists and men of action have achieved in their several provinces. In this respect it differs from most other Catholic encyclopedias. The Editors are fully aware that there is no specifically Catholic science, that mathematics, physiology and other branches of human knowledge are neither Catholic, Jewish, nor Protestant; but when it is commonly asserted that Catholic principles are an obstacle to scientific research, it seems not only proper but needful to register what and how much Catholics have contributed to every department of knowledge.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home

 

[asterism]

I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics. Small but significant distinction. Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.

That's not what I was taught at all.

 

[asterism]

Your attempt to get every red blooded man on this MB to explore his so called feminine side has not gone un noticed.

But enough about you...

The OP suggested that there can be a legitimate parallel path of faith and science. This has been supported by many others drifting back to the old arguments. I guess in a sense that is what is called progress. Not enough. The Christian filter has no place in science other than the study of mental disorders.

I disagree. While some christian sects are not well-adjusted, most are. Faith explores ethics, one's relationship to God and other imponderables. It is a distinct appetite from science.

It's more of a "distant" appetite from science.

I get a chuckle watching the Free Speech chanel from time to time featuring the Vatacan's Astronomer discussing the forming of stars, black holes...dark matter.. and such. I have no idea why this guy works for the POOPY POPE! He "sounds" like a real scientist. Everything that pops out of his pie hole screams...NO GOD!!! Yet he still stands there with the funny collar. If he wasn't explaining REAL science it would look like a SNL skit.

While it may scream "no God" to you, it tells me that science are religion are compatible enough for the Church to dedicate some resources to the study of science.

 

[editec]

Science is a technique.

Religion is a conclusion.

 

[asterism]

So I see this thread is still going

something about the flood?


Yeah, at the end of the last ice age, near the fertile crescent, the retreating ice opened a path to the sea that flooded a rather large valley. They've found settlements and satellite imagery reveals what used to be rather fertile lands where the rivers used to still run prior to the flood.

There've been several specials about it on the tele.


There've been numerous localized floods throughout history.


When all you've known your whole life is a single valley or plain, and its flooded, and you can't travel beyond the flood zone, it's easy to believe the whole world has flooded.

It's no great mystery, really.

Yup.

 

[asterism]

Methodology - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

At least they have a "methodology". With them, I have more faith than religion, which has nothing but bizarre and unbelievable fables.

Your ignorance is not proof that your conclusion is correct no matter how little you actually understand about statistics. That said, I can completely agree that religion makes use of stories, parables, fables, and some things stated as facts.

So tell me more about your faith in this study and the methodology used.

Do you really believe in "Noah's Ark" and "The Garden of Eden"?

I do. As it pertains to my religion I generally believe things unless I find compelling evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if the great flood in Genesis really encompassed the entire planet or just the area of what was then known to the Israelites. I've found that other non Judeo-Christian legends mention the great flood.

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

1. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature totally non-biblical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_(Hinduism) and lots of others that have already been referenced in this thread.

2. It doesn't have to encompass the whole planet as we know now, it just has to encompass the whole world as known to a person who lived in Israel 3000 years ago, this has already been mentioned in this thread.

 

[asterism]

Name some.

Second,

If it doesn't encompass the whole world, then you are saying it's a lie and you don't believe. Either way, you lose.

Here are over 200 flood myths from all over the world.

For someone who considers himself intelligent, you are remarkably ignorant.

Oh no. Now you went and did it. Did you read those stories?

This one I like best: One day a feast was made for a circumcisionbanned, during which all manner of beasts were pitted to fight one another. The last fight was between dogs and cats. During this fight, a great flood came down from the mountains, drowning everyone except two or three menials who had been sent to the hills to gather firewood. Then the sun, moon, and stars were extinguished. When light returned, there was no land, and all the abodes of men had been overwhelmed.

Believe me, I compare "Noah's Ark" to these stories. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. I'm sorry I was a skeptic. Thanks for the link. These are truly hilarious. I'm going to read some more.

Check this one out: Water covered the whole earth, and all the Atás drowned except two men and a woman who were carried far to sea. They would have perished, but a great eagle offered to carry them on its back to their homes. One man refused, but the other two people accepted and returned to Mapula.

Thus marks the beginning of "polygamy"?

Definitely a sticky situation. Notice how the Bible has no account of things going on in China, Japan, or South America. Do I suggest that those places were uninhabited? No. Do I suggest that to a person living in what is now Lebanon would have no concept of those other "worlds" and therefore wouldn't reference them? Yep.

 

[asterism]

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

You mean like the IPCC report that contains fiction written by an activist? That sort of higher standard?

 

[editec]

The great flood?

Here's a very interesting theory that might explain why much of mankind has such a hazy memory of such a deluge

Black Sea deluge theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Madeline]

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

You mean like the IPCC report that contains fiction written by an activist? That sort of higher standard?

Asterism, are you annoyed that some people do not think religion can be researched? If so, why?

 

[geauxtohell]

I find it funny that, in failing in it's original intent to try and cast science as a "religion" this thread has basically digressed to a theological debate over actual religion.

We can each speak for ourselves. It is an individual choice, what one makes a Religion out of. To think Scientifically, one would seek to refrain from projecting, generalizing, without qualification. Correct?

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

Calling science (or various theories (i.e. evolution)) a "religion" is often done on here by certain people to try and denigrate the field or imply that the people to adhere to scientific thought approach it in the same manner of a religion. Ann Coulter even wrote a book about this; "Godless".

Not so ironically, the people who makes these claims have little, if any, background in scientific study. If they did, perhaps they would realize how silly that statement is.

The central tenant of religion is faith. That's not a pejorative statement. In Christianity; Christ demands that his followers have the blind faith of a child. Religion also deals with the supernatural.

Science is a man-made construct to try and explain the natural world through observation, logic, and testing. Faith and the supernatural are in no way involved and, if inserted into a scientific process, automatically invalidate it.

That doesn't mean that the two have to be in conflict (though, the people who don't understand the difference and claim science is a religion obviously think otherwise). However, they are not the same thing. They are not even close.

As for "thinking scientifically", this is a message board. Not a case conference.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You are generalizing and mis-categorizing. How many religions around the world do you believe you speak for? Probably none. How many have you studied in detail? You may know science, you may know medicine. What you are showing by your statement is the flip side of the coin, of how people in the name of religion mis-characterize science, by mis-characterizing religion. Being human, we all wrestle with boundaries.

How many religions I "speak for" is irrelevant. How many religions I speak of is the topic here. If you find my statement wrong and believe that there is any religion that performs research on that religion in an equal capacity and standard as science, by all means provide the example.

But let me just jump ahead in time and tell you what you will find available to you as presentation points:

1. A religious group using the scientific method to research non-religious topics and draw legitimate conclusions
2. A religious group failing to use the scientific method properly but claiming to do so, drawing illegitimate coerced conclusions from cherry picked data
3. The book report studying I mentioned above

The point still being: religious research does not exist to the goal and caliber of scientific research. It either doesn't analyze the physical world, propagates fabrication, or at best isn't actually researching religion. But again, if you'd like to show me to be incorrect, provide a counter example.

Bad direction is bad direction, be it science, religion, life.

For example, what brought us to this point?


Jon Markman at MSN Money doesn't hold back when he says "Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy." It's even more provoking when he writes "replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%."

The problem isn't with the cars, the problem is with what it takes to grow the biofuel in the first place. Clearing the land, harvesting, and refining the crops, plus the loss of forest and wild lands and habitats, amounts to creating a carbon footprint worse than fossil fuels. According to the Science article which, admittedly, posits an extreme scenario, it would take 423 years to even out the carbon debt if Indonesia's peat lands were converted to palm oil fields.
Science magazine declares ethanol worse for the Earth than fossil fuels — Autoblog

Several more companies are expected to begin producing biofuels next year, but an energy research associate says the public should not expect any energy breakthroughs anytime soon.



Five companies will begin producing cellulosic ethanol in 2011, which is different from regular ethanol in that it comes from woodchips and grass instead of sugar or corn. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act already calls for 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be on the market next year and for 16 billion gallons to be produced per year by 2022.

But Brian McGraw, a research associate with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), has worked closely with the alternate ethanol and says this type of production is not commercially viable.
'New' ethanol not commercially viable (OneNewsNow.com)

Original Preface. The Catholic Encyclopedia, as its name implies, proposes to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine. What the Church teaches and has taught; what she has done and is still doing for the highest welfare of mankind; her methods, past and present; her struggles, her triumphs, and the achievements of her members, not only for her own immediate benefit, but for the broadening and deepening of all true science, literature and art — all come within the scope of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It differs from the general encyclopedia in omitting facts and information which have no relation to the Church. On the other hand, it is not exclusively a church encyclopedia, nor is it limited to the ecclesiastical sciences and the doings of churchmen. It records all that Catholics have done, not only in behalf of charity and morals, but also for the intellectual and artistic development of mankind. It chronicles what Catholic artists, educators, poets, scientists and men of action have achieved in their several provinces. In this respect it differs from most other Catholic encyclopedias. The Editors are fully aware that there is no specifically Catholic science, that mathematics, physiology and other branches of human knowledge are neither Catholic, Jewish, nor Protestant; but when it is commonly asserted that Catholic principles are an obstacle to scientific research, it seems not only proper but needful to register what and how much Catholics have contributed to every department of knowledge.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home

Didn't read any of the three posts above. Let me know when you'd like to make a point.

I would agree except faith generally explores morals, not ethics. Small but significant distinction. Ethics is usually evidence based and logically supported, whereas morals are generally blindly followed because someone told you it's how you ought to act.

That's not what I was taught at all.

Oh? What were you taught? What ethical or moral rules do you follow and why?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do people have the need to restrict the opposition to narrow definitions that make it impossible to argue a position rationally? Even Wikipedia doesna't agree with your definition, even if it acknowledges it.

Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes,

That seems rather close to my definition, the point being that creationism states all things were made as they currently are, which is in direct opposition to evolution. What part do you feel overlaps there?

How ironic that you counsel against using generalizations when you insist on doing so yourself.

What do you feel I generalized?

The part where you assume that everyone who believes in creation believes that the universe was created as is. I posted the whole definition from Wikipedia to point out the part where it says that the general usage, which I bolded above, has deviated from the proper definition and usage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a bit dismissive, donca think SmarterThanHick? A Rabbi, Imam or priest has presumably a body of knowledge about their faith the average person does not have. The subject matter may strike you as less worthy than science, but that's a value judgment.

It is still knowledge, gained by studying.

Everything you just said is correct, Maddy, but as you said: it's knowledge gained from studying. That doesn't make it research any more than studying English literature, and should not be so easily held equal to scientific research, which is performed at a drastically higher standard with different goals.

Really? I thought the goal was always the same in dissertations for doctorates, to find new knowledge and make it available to others. A few years ago science had reached the point where it was believed that all possible knowledge had already been discovered, and that any further research would simply be rewriting old stuff, and of no intrinsic worth. I don't know about you, but I am pretty happy no one payed attention to the pundits back then. Why should I believe that everything it is possible to learn about God is already known? Where in the Bible does it say that God has stopped revealing new knowledge about Himself to his creation?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts.

Calling science (or various theories (i.e. evolution)) a "religion" is often done on here by certain people to try and denigrate the field or imply that the people to adhere to scientific thought approach it in the same manner of a religion. Ann Coulter even wrote a book about this; "Godless".

Not so ironically, the people who makes these claims have little, if any, background in scientific study. If they did, perhaps they would realize how silly that statement is.

The central tenant of religion is faith. That's not a pejorative statement. In Christianity; Christ demands that his followers have the blind faith of a child. Religion also deals with the supernatural.

Science is a man-made construct to try and explain the natural world through observation, logic, and testing. Faith and the supernatural are in no way involved and, if inserted into a scientific process, automatically invalidate it.

That doesn't mean that the two have to be in conflict (though, the people who don't understand the difference and claim science is a religion obviously think otherwise). However, they are not the same thing. They are not even close.

As for "thinking scientifically", this is a message board. Not a case conference.

The way I look at it is that some people look at science the way others look at religion, as the guiding light and source of wisdom. Neither can offer all the answers to life's questions, and the only place they conflict is in the monds of people, on both sides, who are too small minded to acknowledge that they do not know everything. Some people have used their belief in God to bash science because they believe that their belief system trumps the facts.

Some people (Richard Dawkins to name one) have used their belief in science to trump religion. All Dawkins has really succeeded at is misrepresenting evolution, and science, in an attempt to prove something that is beyond his ability to comprehend. He is a prime example of how science is used as a religion, and he is a preacher of that religion. That does not make the science behind his faith wrong, anymore than the Crusades make Christianity wrong. It just means that people can corrupt anything.

Evolution is not a religion, but some people treat it like it is. If you refuse to see this that makes you just as blind as those who refuse to see that science is seeking truth.